Why does God hate babies who have not sinned?

[Balerion]

Balerion,



In other words you're going to continue to evade, and obfuscate. Fine.

Again with the reading comprehension. If you can't follow along with the discussion, what's the point?

If you were to describe your day today, you wouldn't begin it with "I saw this computer sitting on my desk, and it had this clean and shiny monitor that worked perfectly, and saw that it was connected to the internet, so I logged on and here I am!" You'd simply say "I logged onto the internet." The fact taht we see the tree through Eve's eyes suggests that she had either never seen it before, or never noticed it.

I answered your question clearly and directly. What's so hard to understand about the above?

Yes, but not where the tree was located.
Do try and keep up.

So? How do you explain the fact that she seems to be seeing it for the first time when she eats from it?

Genesis 5

Do you see Abel's name in there? No, you don't. By your logic, his not being included means that he wasn't Adam's son.

The word ''Seth'' means to substitute.

And what do you think the significance of that is?

Yes you do.

I don't play games the way you do. If I'm wrong, I admit it. I have integrity. If I knew what you meant, I'd address it. I don't, so I said so. If you don't have the integrity to clarify your statement, say so.

How do you know?

How do I know that Adam didn't know to listen to God instead of his wife? Gee, I dunno, maybe the part where he ate of the tree?

I mean, what the eff?

Wrong.
Read the link I posted.

Not wrong. The link you posted only names Seth as his son. By your own logic, that Abel was not listed in this geneology, he was not Adam's. Remember?

If Cain was Adam's son, he would be part of his geneology.

Abel is not listed in the geneology, yet you don't seem to see that as a problem. Remember?

Adam is known to have to sons Seth and Abel.

We see evolution in drug resistance for antibiotics. The bacteria evolve to be less sensitive to the drugs

The selective breeding of domestic plants and animals is another example.

Okay, I was just making sure. Never know with you.

They all look like birds to me. I'll pretend you misunderstood the question, and invite you to
try again. Please read and understand the question before your attempt.

Oh, so you don't realize that birds are not all the same species? What exactly are you looking for? A crockaduck?

So you're saying only those who are educated can understand darwinian evolution, and those that aren't cannot understand anything about it?

Not at all. What I'm saying is that people who don't know anything about evolution don't understand anything about it. You are a great example of such ignorance. It's actually quite simple, so that ignorance is usually willful. Again, you stand a shining example of this.

That's the dumbest thing I've heard, on this subject matter.
Congratulations! You've reached an all time low.

Translation: "I don't have a good response to this, so here come the insults!"

And I'm the King of England, consider yourself told.

More willful ignorance.

Sure you are, but you have no comprehension of it, or you comprehend it but choose to stick with the mainstream version because it justifies your religion, DE the basis of which is materialism.

You're doing a lot of accusing, and no supporting. If this is all you have...

What do you mean?

Just what I said.

Just answer the question.
Was the tree of life literal or figurative?

If the latter, why did he use it in that manner?

Thanks in advance.

jan.

Again, it's irrelevant. Darwin's use of the term is irrelevant. Darwin's "Tree of Life" is a tree in the sense of a family tree, where all organisms can be traced back to their origins. I guess in that sense it's a literal tree. Of course, the tree of life in the bible is a tree that one eats from and gains eternal life. I think he used the term "tree of life" because it was a familiar reference. Sort of like when we call a giant war or catastrophe "Armageddon."

 

[wynn]

So you are trying to say that carnal knowledge of the opposite sex is the basis for morality? Are you serious?!

Are you serious in coming up with the idea that I was suggesting such a thing?!

That is ridiculous, and it is a false dilemma to say that the possibility for having children makes the act of sex itself more significant to moral judgment.

Only to people who are somehow ignorant of what the natural consequence of sex is.

and if you have ever seen a teen mother, you would know how little it actually changes them.

From what I've seen, people do seem to be changed in some subtle way once they are not virgins anymore. There seems to be a hardness, a determination, a reserve that wasn't there before.

 

[Syne]

Syne,

Yes and no.
If I'm not mistaken, you think that the (6th day crew) ''mankind'' came about via the biological route.
They didn't.
At least not according to the Bible

Aside from being non sequitur, where exactly does it specify what means god may have used?

8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. -2 Peter 3

24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. -Genesis 1

7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. -Genesis 2​

According to the scripture God created their bodies simultaneosly.

Again with the complete non sequitur. Is English not your native language? A & E were only created simultaneously if you completely ignore Genesis 2, or generally cherry-pick like you seem prone to do.

Yes he created ''the great whales, and every living creature that moveth, and they were all brought forth by the water in abundance, then they were instructed to multiply.
Not that He create a male and a female whale.

Wait, I thought you agreed that they multiplied through sex.

My point is that Adam, according to the Bible and Qu'ran, is a special creation of God's, after the 6th day crew.

Certainly. Man was the image of god, hence granted free will. What does this have to do with when man was capable of sex? Or are your posts just generally non sequitur?


And way to completely dodge the fact that I provided you with the scripture on man being commanded to multiply.

Are you serious in coming up with the idea that I was suggesting such a thing?!

You said:

Sure, given that having sex can bring about a significant change of things - ie. new members of the population. That brings along moral/value judgments.

You clearly indicated that sex was the antecedent of value judgments. Maybe instead of sounding indignant you should correct yourself if that is not what you meant.

That is ridiculous, and it is a false dilemma to say that the possibility for having children makes the act of sex itself more significant to moral judgment.

Only to people who are somehow ignorant of what the natural consequence of sex is.

It is hilarious that you go from being indignant at the suggestion only to turn right around and defend it.

From what I've seen, people do seem to be changed in some subtle way once they are not virgins anymore. There seems to be a hardness, a determination, a reserve that wasn't there before.

Really? So humans are not born with any moral sense, but must have this "subtle change" after sex? Preposterous. Are you a virgin?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Syne,

...where exactly does it specify what means god may have used?

Genesis 1v26:

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

jan.

 

[Syne]

Syne,

...where exactly does it specify what means god may have used?

Genesis 1v26:

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Nope. Wrong emphasis.

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. -Genesis 1​

And the means of that making:

24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. -Genesis 1

7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. -Genesis 2​

"And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light" only illustrates the ease with which god created, not the means.

 

[Greatest I am]

And God said.

Who was God talking to and who recorded these words?

Regards
DL

 

[Syne]

And God said.

Who was God talking to and who recorded these words?

"And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light" only illustrates the ease with which god created, not the means.

Try reading, it helps.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Balerion,

Again with the reading comprehension. If you can't follow along with the discussion, what's the point?

....

If you were to describe your day today, you wouldn't begin it with "I saw this computer sitting on my desk, and it had this clean and shiny monitor that worked perfectly, and saw that it was connected to the internet, so I logged on and here I am!" You'd simply say "I logged onto the internet." The fact taht we see the tree through Eve's eyes suggests that she had either never seen it before, or never noticed it.

You said in an earlier post:

The verse implies that she had never even seen the tree before, as she doesn't notice what it looks like until the snake tells her that it won't kill her. It may be greed, but her motives are not described as being envious.

And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

It doesn't seem as though Eve was at the location of the tree because earlier she mentioned it's location (gen 3v3). IOW it would be pointless to give it's location if you're standing in front of it. That being the case, when she remarked that ''it was pleasant to the eyes'' she must have known what she was talking about, meaning she must have seen it before.

So? How do you explain the fact that she seems to be seeing it for the first time when she eats from it?

I don't see it as a fact, or even a possibility, given what is actually written.

Do you see Abel's name in there? No, you don't. By your logic, his not being included means that he wasn't Adam's son.

Abel died with no off-spring, why would his name be in a family tree, the purpose being to show lineage. On the other hand Cain was alive, with his
own family tree, with no connection to Adam. That tells me he's not biologically related to Adam at all.

And what do you think the significance of that is?

That could well have been his roll, a substitue for Abel, carrying on Adams lineage.

I don't play games the way you do. If I'm wrong, I admit it. I have integrity. If I knew what you meant, I'd address it. I don't, so I said so. If you don't have the integrity to clarify your statement, say so.

Okay, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt.

3 And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord.

4 And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the Lord had respect unto Abel and to his offering:

5 But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.

How do I know that Adam didn't know to listen to God instead of his wife? Gee, I dunno, maybe the part where he ate of the tree?

I mean, what the eff?

That doesn't mean that Adam didn't know not to partake of the fruit. He may have chosen to accept the fate that he knew awaited his wife, out of loyalty to her.

Abel is not listed in the geneology, yet you don't seem to see that as a problem. Remember?

Abel's not mentioned because he could not (being dead), and more importantly, did not, contributeto the lineage.

Oh, so you don't realize that birds are not all the same species? What exactly are you looking for? A crockaduck?

I do too realise, but that doesn't answer the question I asked. The correct answer is...... an emphatic no!

Not at all. What I'm saying is that people who don't know anything about evolution don't understand anything about it. You are a great example of such ignorance. It's actually quite simple, so that ignorance is usually willful. Again, you stand a shining example of this.

You have to resort this because you cannot answer my question.
I understand man. I'm not going to come in between you and your only crutch.

More willful ignorance.

Lighten up man!


jan.

 

[Syne]

So? How do you explain the fact that she seems to be seeing it for the first time when she eats from it?

6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. -Genesis 3​

This is just saying all the ways she justified, to herself, taking and eating the fruit.

2 The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’” -Genesis 3​

Unless you assume "the middle of the garden" was completely unknown to those who lived there. Seeing how you seem to assume a significant amount of time between Genesis 2 & 3 (too much for a birth in verse 4 to have been caused by any possible sex in verse 2), they would have had to have lived in this garden for a minimum of 9 months prior to the temptation and fall. So in 9 months she just never happened across the middle of the garden?

 

[davewhite04]

Why does God hate babies who have not sinned?

Scriptures indicate that God knows that babies in the womb have not done anything good or evil. They also indicate that God hates some babies even while in the womb and innocent. It is also said that God creates us and our characters. Our characters, as we evolve, cannot help but do evil. God then is responsible for the evil that we will do as he has created our natures. Natures that we cannot help but follow.

We can blame our free will and the choices we make for the evil that we do but this does not explain why our God created natures decide to do evil. Theistic evolutionists try to explain this paradox but the average literalist or fundamental Christian does not follow their reasoning.

We have no choice and no free will to deviate from our God given sin nature and God would know this as it is was all planned. Jesus was to die even before man was created. That is why Adam’s sin is called a necessary sin.

If we have no choice in following our sin natures, and cannot deviate from our part in God’s plan, then what is God’s reason for punishing us for being exactly what he created and programmed us to do?

That is why Adam’s sin is called a necessary sin. He could not help but sin and neither can any of us. You cannot help but do evil and thus sin.

This is all rather abstract so if you like I will imagine a viable scenario for us to work with. We all know that many are starving to death in various countries. Imagine one of these starving children walking past a farmer’s apple tree. The child knows that if he steals the apples that the farmer’s family will starve to death. He or she has a choice of either stealing apples to prevent their death or not. The survival instinct being our first instinct, I think apples will be eaten.

That child’s God given nature will choose life, as all natures do by default, and eat an apple. Does that child deserve hell when it’s God given nature drove it to sin?

We cannot do anything but follow our basic God given natures. Do we deserve hell for doing so?

Is God’s punishment unjust?

If sin was required for Jesus to manifest, Adam had to sin. Would his punishment and death have also been unjust?

Did God, knowing Adam would be a sinner and cause God’s/Jesus’ death, hate Adam as well when he was creating him?

Regards
DL

This clip explains theistic evolution and how you cannot help but do evil and sin.

http://www.youtube.com/user/ProfMTH#g/c/6F8036F680C1DBEB

Is God punishing you? When was the last time God killed dozens of innocent kids on a retreat on a peaceful Norwegian Island? When was the last time you killed a baby? God knows how many babies we've killed of our own free will...

Think.

 

[Greatest I am]

Try reading, it helps.

Try answering the question instead of deflecting.

Or admitting that you cannot.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

Is God punishing you? When was the last time God killed dozens of innocent kids on a retreat on a peaceful Norwegian Island? When was the last time you killed a baby? God knows how many babies we've killed of our own free will...

Think.

Think.

How many babies did God kill with his free will?

Regards
DL

 

[Syne]

Try answering the question instead of deflecting.

Or admitting that you cannot.

Are you seriously this dense?

The Bible attributes the authorship of Genesis to Moses, well after the events of creation. And like I already said, "God talking" "only illustrates the ease with which god created". Now quit asking ignorant and obtuse questions.

 

[Balerion]

It doesn't seem as though Eve was at the location of the tree because earlier she mentioned it's location (gen 3v3). IOW it would be pointless to give it's location if you're standing in front of it. That being the case, when she remarked that ''it was pleasant to the eyes'' she must have known what she was talking about, meaning she must have seen it before.

She didn't make the remark that it was pleasant to the eyes. The narrator says that, from her perspective. And when she sees that, she eats the fruti. Meaning she had never seen that the tree was pleasant to the eyes before. Meaning she had never seen the tree before. Or maybe she had but had never noticed it, but that seems unlikely.

I don't see it as a fact, or even a possibility, given what is actually written.

I don't see how that's possible. If I said to you, "When I saw this girl was pretty, and that she smelled nice, I asked her out," would you think I had ever seen her before? That's exactly what's being said about Eve's experience with the tree.

Abel died with no off-spring, why would his name be in a family tree, the purpose being to show lineage. On the other hand Cain was alive, with his
own family tree, with no connection to Adam. That tells me he's not biologically related to Adam at all.

That makes no sense, jan. Earlier you said that because Cain wasn't included in Genesis 5, he wasn't Adam's son. I explained to you that neither Cain nor Abel were mentioned, because Genesis 5 is a geneology that links Adam to Noah. This connection is through Seth's line, so there would be no reason to mention the other children by name. Did you also fail to notice that only one child is named in every generation of that geneology? It says for pretty much everyone that "He had sons and daughters," but only lists the child who leads to Noah by name.

As for Cain's lineage, that's in Genesis 4, which begins with:

"And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain," ​

How much clearer does it need to be?

That could well have been his roll, a substitue for Abel, carrying on Adams lineage.

That would only make sense if Abel were his only other son, but this is known to be untrue. He had three who were named--Cain, Abel, and Seth--and many others who were not. The significance of those three is evident: Cain kills Abel, becoming the first murderer, and Seth begins the line that leads to Noah. None of the others were of any "historical" (I put it in quotes because I doubt any of these people really lived) significance.

Okay, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt.

Oh, so you're saying that if Cain was Adam's son, he would have given God a proper offering. I'm sorry, I just don't see how you come to that conclusion. First of all, they each just brought stuff from where they worked. "Abel kept flocks, and Cain worked the soil." So it stands to reason that Abel would bring something flock-related while Cain would bring something soil-related. Secondly, the point of having Cain's offering rejected is to set up the ensuing murder that defines them both. It's a plot device.

That doesn't mean that Adam didn't know not to partake of the fruit. He may have chosen to accept the fate that he knew awaited his wife, out of loyalty to her.

There's just no reason to believe that based on the text. The whole point of the serpent is to trick Eve, and Adam to believe her. There's no suggestion that he would have chosen certain death. You're intimating that on your own; it's not in the text.

Abel's not mentioned because he could not (being dead), and more importantly, did not, contributeto the lineage.

Exactly! Neither did Cain.

Understand now?

I do too realise, but that doesn't answer the question I asked. The correct answer is...... an emphatic no!

Wait, I did answer your question. Go back and read it. But more importantly, you didn't ask me a yes or no question, so what is the "emphatic no" an answer to?

You have to resort this because you cannot answer my question.
I understand man. I'm not going to come in between you and your only crutch.

This is rhetoric, as is plain to anyone reading along. I don't need to pursue this any further, I think.

 

[wynn]

Re: Why does God hate babies who have not sinned?

Q: How many babies does God have to allow to be killed, for people to see it is people who are killing them?
A: Some people will never see it.

 

[Neverfly]

Re: Why does God hate babies who have not sinned?

Q: How many babies does God have to allow to be killed, for people to see it is people who are killing them?
A: Some people will never see it.

Many babies die of natural causes. The body can naturally abort. Point made: Find someone to blame. A deity will do in a pinch.

 

[wynn]

Okay, a new one:

Q: How many babies have to die before humans stop blaming God for it?
A: They won't stop blaming God, because they believe God owes them all kinds of things, including children.

 

[davewhite04]

Think.

How many babies did God kill with his free will?

Regards
DL

I don't know where your at in life mate, or what experiences you've had, particularly with religion in the past BUT your not dense and ask some good questions.

I don't know the answer to your question, but others have written good posts after mine which hold perfect rebukes.

 

[Greatest I am]

Are you seriously this dense?

The Bible attributes the authorship of Genesis to Moses, well after the events of creation. And like I already said, "God talking" "only illustrates the ease with which god created". Now quit asking ignorant and obtuse questions.

How could Moses write about his own death?

Further, the 5 books of Moses are known for having been written by three different writers.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

I don't know where your at in life mate, or what experiences you've had, particularly with religion in the past BUT your not dense and ask some good questions.

I don't know the answer to your question, but others have written good posts after mine which hold perfect rebukes.

Perfect rebukes that do not show why a God who can cure decides to take the moral low ground and kill.
Satan is supposed to take the moral low ground but God took it instead.

Regards
DL